Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 06:20 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:dfd69$45b5768e$4fe772a$18500(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:e3d5d$45b51eee$4fe7758$13922(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>>Your Lawrence was there stirring up all sorts of trouble, >>>trying to unite the Arabs against everyone else including >>>their only salvation at the time, the British Army. They >>>should have sent him home much earlier. > >>>His legacy remains very much intact. > >> First off, this does not imply BAH's line of reasoning was in any way, >> shape or form, logical. > > I don't follow her arguments very closely. It is hard to follow them as they are normally nonsensical. >> Secondly, this suffers from the same history problems as most attempts to >> revisit the past. > > History only 100 years old is not fraught with problems. My > own father was very much in touch with world events in that > day, and transmitted lots of information to me as I was > growing up in ways that helped shape my life, my thinking, > and how I dealt and continue to deal with the world. Yet here we have an example of how it is still fraught with problems. My parents were also in touch with what went on, but certainly in an age before the Internet (before TV in the UK), their knowledge and understanding of what went on in the colonies and elsewhere was biased. > I have every reason to believe that there are lots of people > in the middle east with a similar history, and at my age we > tend to be community leaders. 100 year old history is pertinent > to today. > >> Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing issues the tribes >> in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary. > > That's what we call a copout. That there were pre-existing > issues is true enough, but that Lawrence didn't increase the > problems isn't a realistic conclusion. Well, here we hit an impasse. I say it is bad practice to make judgements like this based on an arbritrary date in the past, and you seem to want to use it when you get to pick the dates and interpretation. > He also showed the > Arabs of the day how to beat the British Army, not a very > cool move then or now. This is kind of like the 4 minute > mile. Once someone did it it became commonplace. Until that > time, it was considered an insurmountable barrier. The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this.
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 06:49 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <47753$45b561fd$4fe772a$17621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > [....] > >>Beyond that, our western sane criminal will insist on full >>protection of the same laws being violated. Insane ones >>don't much care. > > > That is not true in most cases. People who are insane often have a narrow > area in which their logic is messed up or they believe things that simply > aren't true. In other areas they may be quite sane. Those are the ones who fail to achieve an insanity defense, and not what I was talking about.
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 06:52 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <zISdnY4yq_45cinYRVnyiQA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] > >>>We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not >>>those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're >>>actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. >> >>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by the >>US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. > > > Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. What the US does is what the de facto standard of US conduct is. That being said, most promises made by man are broken.
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 08:01 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:dfd69$45b5768e$4fe772a$18500(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:e3d5d$45b51eee$4fe7758$13922(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>>Your Lawrence was there stirring up all sorts of trouble, >>>>trying to unite the Arabs against everyone else including >>>>their only salvation at the time, the British Army. They >>>>should have sent him home much earlier. >> >>>>His legacy remains very much intact. >> >>>First off, this does not imply BAH's line of reasoning was in any way, >>>shape or form, logical. >> >>I don't follow her arguments very closely. > > > It is hard to follow them as they are normally nonsensical. I've seen some of your disagreements with her and have to say that quite often her discussion is what I am used to seeing from intellectuals somewhat sheltered in campus situations. There are multiple realities in this world even though we are looking at the same thing. The example of the blind men describing an elephant doesn't invariably require the describers to be physically blind, after all. >>>Secondly, this suffers from the same history problems as most attempts to >>>revisit the past. >> >>History only 100 years old is not fraught with problems. My >>own father was very much in touch with world events in that >>day, and transmitted lots of information to me as I was >>growing up in ways that helped shape my life, my thinking, >>and how I dealt and continue to deal with the world. > Yet here we have an example of how it is still fraught with problems. My > parents were also in touch with what went on, but certainly in an age before > the Internet (before TV in the UK), their knowledge and understanding of > what went on in the colonies and elsewhere was biased. Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened 36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications and information issue. >>I have every reason to believe that there are lots of people >>in the middle east with a similar history, and at my age we >>tend to be community leaders. 100 year old history is pertinent >>to today. >>>Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing issues the tribes >>>in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary. >>That's what we call a copout. That there were pre-existing >>issues is true enough, but that Lawrence didn't increase the >>problems isn't a realistic conclusion. > Well, here we hit an impasse. I say it is bad practice to make judgements > like this based on an arbritrary date in the past, and you seem to want to > use it when you get to pick the dates and interpretation. Then there's never any discussion to be had because whether we speak of 5 minutes ago, or 5 hours ago, or 5 days ago, or 5000 days ago, or even 36,500 days ago we encounter exactly the same problem. Yet clearly we have discussions, so the premise must be flawed. >>He also showed the >>Arabs of the day how to beat the British Army, not a very >>cool move then or now. This is kind of like the 4 minute >>mile. Once someone did it it became commonplace. Until that >>time, it was considered an insurmountable barrier. > The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this. But the Arabs sure didn't know that and didn't have any of the tools to do it with.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Jan 2007 08:04
In article <Rb2dnXdKuZ0ahCjYRVnysQA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ep2aoe$8ss_005(a)s898.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <ep070n$tuf$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <eovot5$8ss_011(a)s944.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <45B293DB.DEAE84AD(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >>>>>> >> >> >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists >>>>>> >> >> >> will. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to >>>>>> >> >> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she >>>>>> >> >> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >What has where they're visiting got to do about it ? Have they >>>>>> >> >been >>>>>> >> >visiting extremists ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Yes. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Which ones ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you find out for yourself? That way you might stumble >>>>>> across what these idiots have been announcing and saying, too. >>>>> >>>>>Because I'm not going to make any assumption about whom you had in mind. >>>> >>>>I don't have Kerry's nor Clinton's itenerary. The news has mentioned >>>>Syria, Afghanistan, and I don't recall if one of them stopped in >>>>PLO territory. I would expect Hillary to stop. >>> >>>You said they met with extremists. Now it comes out you had no evidence >>>for that. That they stopped in some places is all you have as fact. All >>>the rest is something you assumed. >> >> Do you consider Syria to be moderate and, thus, not a problem? > >Irrelevant. If, for example, they met with US military officials in >Afghanistan does that mean they met with extremists? Who else did Clinton meet with? Which NATO people did Clinton meet? I listened to the President of Afghanistan make a speech several years ago on CSPAN. The assumption of the audience was that he wanted the US to leave (this was the start of the anti-Bush nonsense) and was asked a trick question during his Q&A session. He did not fall for the trick and made it perfectly clear that they did not want the US to leave any time soon. He gave a short lecture about how much time it takes to build infrastructure and get an economy going if the goal is self-sufficiency. Even if everything worked perfectly, and this never happens on a farm, it takes years to get land into production and processing infrastructures built and established. I don't understand how people^Wcity slickers think that all this can happen overnight at the wave of a wand when it takes many growing seasons to achieve maximum production. If the land has laid fallow, just getting rid of the unwanted plants takes many seasons. Fertilizing cycles takes more. /BAH |